PLato said,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle said "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Turtles and Elephants

There is this notion that to work with different species and incorporate them, it some how makes it more natural an explanation?(guilty):) I guess I am guilty of same and more, by using geometrical progressiveness in place of the propensity for nature to be revealing itself in varying degrees. It was always there for inspection?

So anyway this clip I took from a previous post on, "Who said it?" charts the example I give currently in line with Bee's Backreaction: Turtles all the way up I did not go beyond the introduction, and assume it was not Davies talk. I was cut off at 14 meg while the whole talk is much longer. I'll have to try again tonight(08 sep 2008).

I still have yet to download Davies talk, given the constraints the work schedule limits with regard to the "intranet."

But just reading briefly Dr. Who's position and Markk suggestion that Dr. Who is confusing model with reality.

Bold and italicized were added by me.

The Coleman-Mandula theorem, named after Sidney Coleman and Jeffrey Mandula, is a no-go theorem in theoretical physics. It states that the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincaré group, must be Lorentz scalars.

In other words, every quantum field theory satisfying certain technical assumptions about its S-matrix that has non-trivial interactions can only have a symmetry Lie algebra which is always a direct product of the Poincare group and an internal group if there is a mass gap: no mixing between these two is possible. As the authors say in their introduction, "We prove a new theorem on the impossibility of combining space-time and internal symmetries in any but a trivial way."[1]

First off let me give you an example and you tell me how the idea of any bulk perspective given to graviton understanding will not have it's examples in terms of Lagrangian in space? Serve to help one graduate in terms of gravities when looking at the universe?

Are there no other mechanism that details the Coleman Mandula action other then a multiversity idea in terms of the false vacuum to the true?

I encourage such topological understanding given to a larger format when looking at WMAP of the global perspective. Incidences within the universe give way to a larger depiction of the anomalies generated in perceived examples of monopoles generated in Sean Carroll's group think.

That such concentrations in graviton densities would have an impact on our perceptions in terms of Lagrangian.

If one were to say that any manifold generated at the perception of microscopic views were indicative of a larger topological suggestion in the WMAP, would this then not account for an impression of 10 sup-500-/sup(only written this way because comment section will not allow "sup" html discription)?

Gravities had to be inclusive at all stages and manifold expressions part of this cosmological view?

If this had been the end of the story, then bosons and fermions (and therefore force carriers and matter) would be destined to forever remain distinct. But here comes the loophole. The 1975 Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem (after Rudolf Haag, Jan Lopuszanski, and Martin Sohnius) pointed out that if one relaxes one of the assumptions, and allows anticommuting operators as generators of the symmetry group, then there is a possible non-trivial unification of internal and space-time symmetries. Such a symmetry is called supersymmetry and, as you know, constitutes a large part of current research into particle physics.

No-go theorems are fun in physics because they formalize where the important barriers lie and provide guidance about the directions of future attacks on the problem in question. Negative results in general, although not quite as glamorous or exciting, are still great stuff. We should celebrate them. Plus, we don’t want to be like the medical community do we?

Identify the early universe in the QGP perspective needed some way in which to limit reductionism points of view and by incorporating relativity at that level, such an expression then are imparted to a more global manifold detail based on a larger progressive geometry perspective of the universe.

Universe speeding up? From the inside/out this details such a connection in my view.

Best,

This was done to verify the statements made in two comments there and to show a comment made at cosmic variance's "Lopsided Universe" were related exactly to the points I am currently making in regard to a point of view shared by Dr. Who and a consequential statement by Markk in terms of the multiverse and bubble nucleations.

Sean Carroll:But if you peer closely, you will see that the bottom one is the lopsided one — the overall contrast (representing temperature fluctuations) is a bit higher on the left than on the right, while in the untilted image at the top they are (statistically) equal. (The lower image exaggerates the claimed effect in the real universe by a factor of two, just to make it easier to see by eye.)

See The Lopsided Universe-. Basically the comments I have made in this post by Sean have remained intact although toward the end I think it was thought I might have gone to far?

11 comments:

In reading your comments here and at Bee’s site I’m somewhat confused as to what your position actually is in regards to all this or are you like me somewhat undecided. Turtles forever up and forever down in one respect seems to be an unsatisfactory answer and yet if one truly believes that in some respect our world is a reflection of the mathematical one then it seems only logical to accept. Then again perhaps among all that is mathematical there is only one sequence or format of happenings that could ever form what one would consider reality. What I mean is if something is allowed for yet doesn’t permit what is considered consciousness then can it exist at all. For me the bottom line for me was stated by Rene Descartes several hundred years ago with “ I think therefore I am”. All then one must do is extend this to a universe rather then simply an individual.

Just as a follow up comment, when Einstein asked if it was reasonable to imagine if the moon only existed when one looked at it perhaps it was simply the wrong question, as what might have been imagined and asked if could there ever be a moon if there was nothing to consider it? This is not the same as to ask if a tree falls with no one to hear is there a sound, yet rather if there is nothing to consider the tree can it exist to fall. Sounds of course are simply phenomena yet can the tree be dismissed as being the same? Is it then correct to consider something as emergent if it has at any point no representation in reality yet only a representation in being considerable?

I can only go by the things that I have discovered in my own self. It is subjective for sure and it is of no value to science, yet, I might conceptually see in ways that some might say I am deluded, and others, might wonder about the creativeness with which I pursue understanding of the most basic levels of self and science.

This was purposely written to counter Bee's example. Her impatient with the storytelling of(Brian Greene) and recognizing the positivist attitude with which she harbours as part of her character.

The point about turtles is the question to me of "infinite regress." We have discussed this numerous times.

The point at which emergence is of value to me is when it seeks to combine relativity and the quantum world. To be reduced "too," the very nature of reality now "is," then it becomes the understanding and progression from the light to all it's shadows.

A kaleidescope when looked through is the energy in it's multiplicity and is like a pattern from the inside/out(some would see it patterned according to object it is looking at, and computationally fractal).

It is very Fluid and dynamical to me, yet, I might speak of stronger colours disposed to the character of the individual and their history in terms of the gravity of their situation.

So it is easier for you to see the circle as the example of the supernova and the spherical cow? And, as a sign of wholeness of our being for sure.

So this might be you or I and our expressions into the space around us very much like this unfolding and while I might see this quite naturally as a geometrical expression and progressive. It might not mean anything to you or others.

IN my experience, the schematic of, and design/map takes place first, then the expression unfolds with it's energy into the psychologies and mathematics of our being. They exist simultaneously? How is is that possible. One before the other, while existing simultaneously?

Phil:All then one must do is extend this to a universe rather then simply an individual.

While my pursuance has been subjective in nature, it does require examination beyond what what can be categorized only within my immediate environs.

By examining the globe of our earth and to see what was only dream of by the people on it's surface, and to become part of the new culture who sees earth in it's entirety, is a great step forward for all of us while we still live with our conscience.

This is symbolic for me, about the graduation from what was straight lines and such, moves our perspective forward to this new global realism.

Now again the question to me seems that we are looking for the constants while our consciouses no longer exists. Yes, what is real then to you and I, and only has the path for all people to realize that what exists will continue to exist while we are gone.

The graduation to the global perspective is the realization that our measures now serve to point out that the depth of the matters can be measured from space.

That our earth no longer seems so round, has a landscape to it, that is measured according to it gravitational inclinations. Punch in "Grace satellite" for this perspective.

Now it seems that everything I am saying has this kind of angle to it, that while quite gravitationally dynamical is revealing a fundamental part of our existence, was we realize that this constant will continue to exist even after we die.

How is it possible to think that what exists in the matter world cannot have a greater depth to it and organisms radiate this energy, and "object of material" world have a greater history assigned to it?

The ultimate desire of mankind is to identify wholeness, to grasp the essence of being, to be integrated with the harmony, perfection, patterns, and cycles of the material, metaphorical and metaphysical worlds. This desire motivates us to explore the realms of fact and fancy, logic and metaphor, reason and emotion, to capture the whole of being in one part, to see it, hear it, feel it, and enjoy it in everyday life.

IN this post I am making use of this new feature to consider what I had just mentioned about "Grace satellite" for examination in context of the pictures I had put together in this "series as they unfold."

Of course there is a underlying structure to what I impart philosophically, which I built.

"Topologically" there are a series of pictures that show the topological nature of the inside of our being turning outward, and this "conflicting nature" when I point out "which circle is which," and the ideas of the "liminocentric structure."

You will see "earth's globe" under "this measure of humanity's" about the nature of the landscape and the "nature of the circle." Such graduations are the things that the world of mathematic imparts on the world around us, and from this, we see the world in new ways. But unbeknownst to us, this always existed, and we only had to become aware of it. We now make use of the non-euclidean geometries. Like these "new views" the mathematics always existed too.

One might see in that pictures shown, something of relevance to what is written by Coxeter.

Graphite molecular structures?

Their material world descriptions as diamonds, lead pencil?

"...underwriting the form languages of ever more domains of mathematics is a set of deep patterns which not only offer access to a kind of ideality that Plato claimed to see the universe as created with in the Timaeus; more than this, the realm of Platonic forms is itself subsumed in this new set of design elements-- and their most general instances are not the regular solids, but crystallographic reflection groups. You know, those things the non-professionals call . . . kaleidoscopes! * (In the next exciting episode, we'll see how Derrida claims mathematics is the key to freeing us from 'logocentrism'-- then ask him why, then, he jettisoned the deepest structures of mathematical patterning just to make his name...)

* H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes (New York: Dover, 1973) is the great classic text by a great creative force in this beautiful area of geometry (A polytope is an n-dimensional analog of a polygon or polyhedron. Chapter V of this book is entitled 'The Kaleidoscope'....)"

Do not take it that I totally dismiss the subjective in the search for truth, it’s just that if we are to discover what is emergent and which is not I believe we must look to the object rather then the subject as it relates to science. When an object displays purpose it is recognized through its beauty and as thus they are inseparably tied.

For example for me a circle is not defined as a line that is equidistant from or rotated from a central point, but rather as the defined shortest boarder that can enclose the greatest area; for here is the purpose as mandated by economy. When space-time is considered to be this area where things are observer dependent the first definition might not hold and yet the second surely would. The subjective part where it is also recognized to have symmetry serves only to understand that purpose so realized can be nothing other then beautiful. For me the subjective serves as the sign post or clue and the objective purpose its truth. I would think also your namesake would agree.

BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life? PLATOELPENOR-Home of the Greek Word

Phil:if we are to discover what is emergent and which is not I believe we must look to the object

Yes you are right here of course.

What is the reality then? Is it an asymmetrical realization about where objects emerge from? My focus had been much deeper then one would like to have assumed contained "no value" to a lot of science people

In writing this review, we have tried to discuss the different building blocks that are needed if one wants to construct a relativistic theory for fluids. Although there are numerous alternatives, we opted to base our discussion of the fluid equations of motion on the variational approach pioneered by Taub [108] and in recent years developed considerably by Carter [17, 19, 21]. This is an appealing strategy because it leads to a natural formulation for multi-fluid problems. Having developed the variational framework, we discussed applications. Here we had to decide what to include and what to leave out. Our decisions were not based on any particular logic, we simply included topics that were either familiar to us, or interested us at the time. That may seem a little peculiar, but one should keep in mind that this is a “living” review. Our intention is to add further applications when the article is updated. On the formal side, we could consider how one accounts for elastic media and magnetic fields, as well as technical issues concerning relativistic vortices (and cosmic strings). On the application side, we may discuss many issues for astrophysical fluid flows (like supernova core collapse, jets, gamma-ray bursts, and cosmology).

Thanks to remind me, and with these thoughts about some objects of nature's innate beauty come to mind. The butterfly.

Finally, we also hope that this series furthers the discussion regarding the nature and function of 'the mandala'. In the spiritual traditions from which Jung borrowed the term, it is not the SYMMETRY of mandalas that is all-important, as Jung later led us to believe. It is their capacity to reveal the asymmetry that resides at the very heart of symmetry. By offering a new view about how consciousness itself is structured - in a fundamentally paradoxical fashion - and how these structurings are reflected in principles according to which the mandala is organized, we are able in this series to show how personality itself may be thought of as having an essentially 'liminocentric' design.

It may seem like a hodge pog of elements in this short post. I think you will get some idea of where I am coming from.

Ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing is made from nothing), he wrote: "Christian religion has put up some fences around false speculation in order that error may not rush headlong" (Introduction to Book IV of Epitome astronomae copernicanae, c1620, in Werke Vol. VII p. 254).